Evidence for God from Science

zoegirl wrote:I agree, Gman, that the conclusions are limited.

I was objecting, I think, mostly, to thecomparisions to the racoon, cat, or to a lemur and insisting that the skeleton would be similar. I think we hve to be careful not to invalidate their observations (or, not to oversimplify their observations) and focus on the conclusions.

Thanks for clarifying....

No problemo Zoe... I think the cat was a bit of a streeeetch here. In that case, yes, let's not oversimplify.

you just wanted to post a pic of tha kitty cat!!....well, it looks better than the ones my honors anat dissected!!

zoegirl wrote:you just wanted to post a pic of tha kitty cat!!....well, it looks better than the ones my honors anat dissected!!

If my cat ever found I did that, she would kill me....

godslanguage wrote:Anyways, it is amazing at how this fossil is presented in the media, it really does show the true colors of the media in that Darwinism "reigns supreme". If the scientists who published the work don't agree with the media, they should criticize it in some manner, otherwise they remain "guilty as charged".

I can't really say I'm surprised. There has been a lot of attention around Darwin recently, 200 years since his birth this year, the media love it. A missing link is just what is required at the moment.

I do like Darwin's theory of evolution, I find it rather elegant and beautiful. But much like any other theory it is interesting to see it built upon, modified and eventually shown to have limitations which become the basis for new, hopefully, beautiful and elegant theories and so on.

Gman wrote:I'm directing them to certain scientists that think that this skeleton is somehow related to humans... I don't think it takes much effort to say that it isn't.

It would take quite a bit of effort for me to say that it isn't. If we drop the idea of evolution completely I still can't see how you can deny any relationship to humans. On a basis of form and function it is far more closely related to a human than a bird, a microbe or a computer. On a genetic basis I get the feeling it would also be more closely related to humans than things classed as non-primates, or things without genes. Whilst the basis for these relationships may be vague, to deny them seems rather odd to me. I feel I relate to my cats more than my potatoes, this is not an area I need evidence, proof and effort in. If science proves I'm closer to my potatoes than my cats it is not going to have much of an impact on my day to day feelings or actions.

But all of your statements can be equally explained well using a common designer...

Zoegirl-I appreciate your scientifically objective answers and know when I have a question and want a fair answer that shows all possible angles, I can depend on your responses! You certainly have expertise in the area and you make us girls proud!

zoegirl wrote:But all of your statements can be equally explained well using a common designer...

Yes they can. It's not the explanation I have trouble with but the denial of any sort of a relationship.

I I won't bother to deny that

robyn hill wrote:Zoegirl-I appreciate your scientifically objective answers and know when I have a question and want a fair answer that shows all possible angles, I can depend on your responses! You certainly have expertise in the area and you make us girls proud!

Thank you, I appreciate that!!

BTW, I wanted to clarify another thing. The fossil in the original story was most similar to the primitive primates. It woudn't have taken 47 million years to go from that fossil to a lemur, the lemur had been established and remained in the niche.

I DON"T disagree with you guys with regard to the significance (or lack of significance) to this fossil, merely that there ARE differences.

Throwing up pictures of lemur and cat and raccoon skeletons seems to be rather ridiculous. YOU might not be able to tell the difference between the skeletons...they can.

Yes, but let us not forget where the [flash=]OVERWHELMING[/flash] burden of proof lies. This isn't the 1st media circus with finding THE link. I think we need to be more critical, and demand that claims like this be reserved until they have undergone extreme analysis. I also find it intellectual snobbery regarding claims that we are not experts in skeletal morphology. One doesn't have to have a phd to see the obvious. That there are animals alive and well today that share much similarity. If if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. etc.

I'm no expert in morphology, although certainly I can read through the paper and see that there are differences.

It;s not intellectual snobbery, it's plain fact. These are scientists whose life revovles around studying bones. We don't. I can certainly question their conclusions and maybe their observations but it's only intellectual honesty to be willing to examine what we don't know. AND to be willing to listen without feeling defensive. God's creation is a testament to HIm wherever examination leads us.

jlay wrote:Yes, but let us not forget where the [flash=]OVERWHELMING[/flash] burden of proof lies. This isn't the 1st media circus with finding THE link. I think we need to be more critical, and demand that claims like this be reserved until they have undergone extreme analysis. I also find it intellectual snobbery regarding claims that we are not experts in skeletal morphology. One doesn't have to have a phd to see the obvious. That there are animals alive and well today that share much similarity. If if looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc. etc.

I would agree with you here jlay. We also have to be careful of one's philosophical nature regardless of their educational background...

No offense to anyone else...

I would be very curious to know the nature of this find. What were they looking for? What was the agenda? Funding?

Zoe needs to know that the media doesn't hang outside of college anthropology halls asking, "did you find the link today?" Just because people wear lab coats and have letters after their title does not place them above reproach. I don't care what you say, that is intellectual bullying.

isn't it odd that when science discovers a new creature today, they don't say, "it's evolved." No, it was just previously unknown, and it is now known. Yet, somehow this doesn't apply when digging in the rocks.

jlay wrote:I would be very curious to know the nature of this find. What were they looking for? What was the agenda? Funding?

Zoe needs to know that the media doesn't hang outside of college anthropology halls asking, "did you find the link today?" Just because people wear lab coats and have letters after their title does not place them above reproach. I don't care what you say, that is intellectual bullying.

isn't it odd that when science discovers a new creature today, they don't say, "it's evolved." No, it was just previously unknown, and it is now known. Yet, somehow this doesn't apply when digging in the rocks.

Jlay, you can address me directly, you know, instread of the "zoe needs to know". I am here and you can talk to me. I have given you the courtesy to address you directly and yet you continue with this bizarre form of address, as if you need to talk to me through Gman.

I AGREE that they can be criticized. I never said they couldn't. But for you to blatantly and immediately reject the findings without careful scrutiny seems rather irresponsible for a Christian, and the length of time that it took for the rejection of the findings did not lend itself to any belief that there was scrutiny. All I am saying is that these ARE professionals who have become experts in the field. I do think that Christians have lost much of their credibility when we refuse to engage in a discussion and present a wholesale rejection of any said discussion. I know that when those in the grad classes found out I was a Christian they expressed surprise, as if they had expected an attack instead of discussion. And amazingly enough, they were willing to listen when I would ask questions in class.

To go back to the car analogy, For me to go to a car expert and immediately proclaim that the diffrerences that they note between car makes and models are silly and nonexistent is does not make me right. And for the car expert to then tell me that there are difference does not make it intellectual bullying. For them to INSIST upon a conclusion is another matter.

Whether the differences are CONVINCING is distinct from the existence of those difference. And whehter these fossils mean anything as regards to the existence of God is yet another matter. There are differences and just because you DON"T see them doesn't mean they don't exist.

...